Rick_in_CA

I agree with @@Stosh on this but not because of the risks to the boys. But because of the risks to the adults involved and because it's an honesty issue. As for the stories about sex offenders and social media, don't be taken in by fear mongering stories. The rate is still very low. Look at this article: Scary statistics show that sex offenders are taking over social media. So what are the scary statistics? To quote the above article: It's gone up to 614 reported incidents! Lets do the math: Facebook has 1.65 billion monthly active users, so 614 incidents among 1.65 billion user

@@Cambridgeskip, Thank you for the photos and the work of you and your scouts!

I agree it's all about context. Cussing is generally unacceptable, but the consequences should depend on the what, why and where. A single slip is much different than an adult leader that repeatedly uses inappropriate language in front of the scouts. There is also the problem that not everyone agrees on what is unacceptable. Is "dang it" OK? What about "piss off"? "Frack" (thank you Battlestar Galactica) and "stuff it"? All four are words I remember kids (including me) getting chewed out for using by some adults, while other adults said they were fine to use (and who used them themselves

Wow I just read this thread. I am so very sorry too hear your news. I can only imagine how hard this must be. You and yours are in my thoughts and prayers.

Actually the whole Air Force hates the A-10 thing was explained to me by an Air Force vet this way: "No one ever made general by flying something that didn't go zoom!"

Maybe not: A Teacher Tried To Ban Student-Brought Pencils And Pens In School or Kid sent to counseling for twirling a pencil.

I know several teachers and they all hate zero tolerance policies. @@David CO is right, many parents push for them (they think they will only apply to "those kids", not their own). And it's an easy way for school board members to appear tough and that they are "doing something" ("This zero tolerance policy will send a message to everyone that we are serious about this issue!"). Plus a lot of parents don't think the policies through. They hear "we have a zero tolerance policy on students bringing weapons to school", and they think "sounds great to me!" It never occurs to them that the policy al

I'm not surprised, I run into a lot of scouters that would like the BSA to be fully coed, though I'm not sure it's 2/3. I think it could work fine, as most of the world appears to make it work. One big caveat however, is the American paranoia about males around children (Eek! A Man! Remember: all males are predators). It gets worse if any of those children are female (does the GSUSA even allow men at their camps?).

I agree. When I was a scout, we didn't know about Lyme Disease (tick born - wasn't identified until 1975), and West Nile virus (mosquito born) had not yet shown up (it's just shown up recently here in California).

It's worse case thinking like this that gets us all the silly stuff like "scouts can't climb trees", "must be 14 to use a little red wagon", "no pioneering project can be over 5 feet tall", etc. It's doesn't matter how unlikely the worst case is, that is what we base our rules around. More and more studies are showing a childhood without risks is unhealthy. We have to allow the kids to take reasonable risks.

Well I completely fell for it. It didn't even occur to me to think "April Fools" here. Well played sir!

@@Stosh, I'm really sorry to see you go, I hope it's temporary. I don't always agree with everything you post, but I have always values your point of view. I firmly believe your contributions to this forum have made me a better scouter! You will be missed.

I love it!

I think we need more emoticons. I'm still waiting for my rim-shot emoticon. <badap-boom> just doesn't cut it.

I usually drop the "under God" part, as I always believed it is a violation of separation of church and state (especially in public school settings). I know several parents that teach their children to do the same thing.

I have found many of the I&P debates helpful. Yes, when discussing strongly help beliefs, things can get heated. But we should all try to stay civil, and apologize when we slip up. As @@Stosh and others said, you can disagree without attacking the other. I find that being required to defend my positions helps me to understand my own opinions better, and sometimes it leads to me changing them (yes, a good argument can influence me). I also like hearing the arguments from "the other side" as it helps inform my own opinion, and they often present ideas I hadn't considered. Some pe

I don't understand this. Why is answer 4 acceptable, but answer 2 isn't? The question is "Explain why this profession might interest you", not "Explain why this profession might interest someone else".

@@cyclops, sorry to see you go. You will be missed.

Actually, the religious badge issue was really a symptom of a greater "we don't like Unitarians" among some in the BSA. And it wasn't just the badge, if I remember right, UUA lost it's seat on the BSA's Religious Relations Committee. The UUA wasn't the only religious organization involved with the BSA that disagreed with BSA's stance on gays, but it was singled out by the BSA over it. The Union for Reform Judaism and United Church of Christ both had a falling out with the BSA over the gays issue, neither had their scouts punished by being told they "couldn't wear the religious emblems of their

And we know this how? You are reading something into the OP's post that I am not. He never explicitly says the complainer went behind his back, only that he went to the CM. True, he doesn't say anything about the complainer speaking to him, but he leaves a lot out. I'm not assuming that the OP is behind dishonest, just incomplete. I have to agree with @@gumbymaster here. There is a lot of context we simply don't have. The point I've been trying to make in all this, is to give the complainer the benefit of the doubt, and assume Scout like behavior unless we are giving clear evid

And what you keep ignoring is that we don't know that. You know he went behind the OP's back how? I don't see it in the OP's original post. The OP never wrote anything like "he went behind my back to the Cubmaster", he only wrote "...someone complained to the Cubmaster,..." Is it possible that the complainer acted poorly and went behind the OP's back? Yes. But it is also possible that he didn't. We don't know as the OP didn't give us enough information. You are insisting on making an assumption of unprofessional behavior on the part of the complainer. An unfair assumption in my opinion.

You are assuming a lot. Especially that the three things you mention didn't happen. Here is all that the OP wrote: Was it anonymous? It appears the OP knows who "The Someone" is, so it isn't anonymous (though it's possible "The Someone" intended it to be). But there is nothing in what the OP wrote that says that any of the "disrespectful" behavior you describe did, or did not happen. What I find "amazing" is how so many on this forum are assuming that "The Someone" mentioned by the OP must be acting like some sort of jerk. We simply don't know.

It isn't to me. All we know from the OP was an objection was raised. We don't know what the objection was. It is very possible that the objection was that the sword was illegal (my pack meets in a school here in CA, bringing any steel sword (sharp or not) onto school grounds would be a crime). I refuse to condemn the complaint, or to call anyone a bully here without more information.

This I agree with! But I would add the requirement: "Come up with a plan to avoid the arrest of the adults for allowing the no adults trek."

I think you have hit this one on the head. The reason we have so many more Eagles, is that it has become a focus of the BSA. With MB colleges, Trail to Eagle classes at summer camp, the emphases on merit badges, etc.. All this is adult driven and part of a push toward advancement as a goal. I agree with you. I have met some excellent recent Eagle Scouts (and some poor Eagles "back in the day"). Each is an individual.